Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kovoko


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there was some support for draftifying this the overall consensus is close as delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kovoko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: "Kovoko" is one of the many alternate names for the "crowing crested cobra", which pops up here. But I don't see much coverage in RS outside this guide, which seems to be the definitive recent work on mythical beasts. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sources are all interesting to read, but what matters here is how they relate to establishing topic notability and encyclopedic value.
 * Pitman, Charles (1934). Not a secondary source WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Publisher (government printer) does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:REPUTABLE
 * SHIRCORE, J. O. (1944). Due to the age (fact checking?), content of the article (a collection of hearsay collected by an explorer) and lack of information about the author, I seriously doubt this passes WP:REPUTABLE criteria of WP:RS.
 * Waller, H (1875). A well known travelogue, but not a secondary source WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. A travelogue from 1875 is a dubious use as a source of encyclopedic notability. I downloaded it from but was unable to find anywhere it addresses the "topic directly and in detail" the whole book is cited, but the whole book is not about Kovoko.
 * Naish, Darren (November 21, 2011). Very interesting article, but it is a tertiary source commenting on "anecdotes" in secondary sources. I don't think this meets "addresses the topic directly and in detail" in WP:GNG.
 * The issue here is how they relate to establishing topic notability and encyclopedic value.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think these evaluations are a bit off. The 1944 Shircore paper was published in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal, so is certainly reputable, although also outdated. And the Naish reference is a secondary source, because the topic of this article at AFD is, in fact, those anecdotes. (The crowing crested cobra doesn't actually exist, so the animal itself can't be the topic; the topic has to be the (presumably incorrect) reports of its existence. A more legitimate criticism is that the Naish article is published on a blog, however it is a Scientific American blog which suggests some editorial oversight. pburka (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reason you couldn't find anything in Waller(1875) is that you used volume I, not II, where Bubu receives a mention. You can find it here:
 * Some sources cite this as Horace Waller, The Last Journals of David Livingstone (London: John Murray, 1875), vol. 2, p. 344; but the creator of the page has elected to omit these details. I am so fed up that with behavior that I support deleting the whole lot. It is not acceptable to make sources extra difficult to find. Either source something properly or see your work deleted; it isn't up to reviewers to have to dig up sources for lots of little stubs, only to find that those sources, once one takes the effort of reading them, don't support the claims in the article. I have the impression that the that creator got their material from somewhere else and hasn't used the cited sources to base the article on. I've gone through the effort of proving that at Elbst and that should really suffice. The same is true for all their other creations. Delete all of them:  Ellengassen, Coje Ya Menia (creature), Yaquaru (creature), Narrara (creature), Specs (creature), Mithla (creature) Elbst and whatever got draftifed. Vexations (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: you should be chief of detectives for Wikipedia :) I did look in both vols, but didn't find that mention.  Very fair points, I'm seeing them a bit different, but your points are fair.
 * I could see draftify for this if the consensus is that it could meet WP:N, probably as Crowing Crested Cobra, not Kovoko. It's absolutely in no shape for mainspace, along with all the other pages this creator has started.  // Timothy ::  talk  21:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that. I think this topic probably passes WP:GNG, but there's little value in keeping this batch of articles in main space, at least in their current state. If the author wants to develop them further, they need to provide better sourcing, write in an encyclopedic tone consistent with other articles, and combine information from multiple sources to avoid the appearance of WP:COPYVIO. pburka (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support draftifying the batch (except Mithla (creature), which I think is a hoax); I tried to improve some of the other articles in this collection, but a number of my (IMHO) constructive edits have since been reverted. For "kovoko"/"crowing crested cobra", I'd also add this and this the mix. Thanks to for the thorough combing over of a bibliography that I admittedly glanced at. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The creator has written a statement in support of keeping the article on their talk page in this edit . They are currently blocked (for a week, from August 1), so they cannot respond here. Vexations (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Author request, I am relying the request of the author that this be draftified.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:

i)Notability WP:N

The Original referrer of the Kovoko (referred as 'Bubu'), Livingstone is a notable person, his book is notable, characters (Chuma and Susi) from the book are notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.

ii)Reliability WP:RS

The book has its latest reprint on 2011. These many reprints wouldn't have been there if it wasn't WP:RS. Charles Pitman and SHIRCORE, J. O (other references used) are also notable persons and their works are satisfying WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:REPUTABLE. Furthermore, this book is also used in at least following five mainspace articles of Wikipedia as reference: History of slavery, Arab slave trade, Human tooth sharpening, Kazembe, Chuma and Susi.

iii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iv) Verifiability WP:V

The references used are available for verification: African Affairs 43 - SHIRCORE, J. O., The last journals of David Livingstone in Central Africa (Vol II), A report on a faunal survey of Northern Rhodesia

v) Alternative of Deletion

The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article is under-construction and is in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL, it should be kept.

vi) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

vii) WP:Copyvio

Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.

AranyaPathak (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm just seeing enough here coverage or content wise to justify an article on the topic. My suggestion is that someone write a short thing about in a general article on cryptozology or maybe one more specific to snake species. I'm currently at a lose as to where it could go though. So I won't suggest a merge or redirect. I don't think doing either is necessary anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have an unsupported claim that the imaginary creature also goes by other names, and then we have references about some of those names, e.g. here. Where is the connection? Then someone adds "Quotes" that are supposedly about the subject but the text quoted from the sources does not mention our subject even once - by any name. The whole text follows indeed a very low standard of writing an encyclopaedic article, one to which users will turn to be informed. We could save it by improving it but it is about something of extremely weak notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.